Key workers “paid 8% less than average”

Philip Aldrick Economics Editor The Times 23 April 2020

Britain’s key workers earn 8 per cent less on average than other employees, according to research.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that members of the group were similar to the rest of the workforce in age and education but more likely to be lower-paid and female.

Key workers include doctors, nurses, carers, social workers, teachers, prison officers, binmen and those in the food industry, and cover 7.1 million people, or almost a fifth of UK jobs. The government has asked them to continue working to keep essential services going.

The IFS analysis shows that in 2010 their wages were 5 per cent lower than those of similar non-key workers. The think tank said that last year the wage gap was “around 9 per cent after taking differences in their characteristics into account”.

The group earns an average of £12.26 an hour, 8 per cent less than the £13.26 an hour average of other workers. A third of key workers earn £10 an hour or less, below the long-term target for the national living wage, the IFS said.

Prepare for another Great Depression if Trump wins again, says top economist

Donald Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis has left the US looking like a third-world country and on course for a second Great Depression, one of the world’s leading economists has warned.

Larry Elliott Economics editor the Guardian 23 April 2020

In a withering attack on the president, Joseph Stiglitz said millions of people were turning to food banks, continuing to go to work due to a lack of sick pay, and dying because of health inequalities.

The Nobel prize-winning economist said: “The numbers turning to food banks are just enormous and beyond the capacity of them to supply. It is like a third-world country. The public social safety net is not working.”

Stiglitz, along-term critic of Trump, said 14% of the US population was dependent on food stamps and predicted that the social infrastructure could not cope with an unemployment rate that could reach 30% in the coming months.

“We have a safety net that is inadequate,” he said in an interview with the Guardian. “The inequality in the US is so large. This disease has targeted those with the poorest health.

“In the advanced world, the US is one of the countries with the poorest health overall and the greatest health inequality,” he said.

Republicans had opposed proposals to give those affected by coronavirus 10 days’ sick leave, Stiglitz said, meaning that many employees were going to work even while infected. “The Republicans said no because they said it would set a bad precedent. It is literally unbelievable.”

He added: “The safety net is not adequate and is propagating the disease. There is very weak unemployment insurance and people don’t think they can rely on it?’

During an interview to mark the paperback publication of his book People, Power, and Profits, Stiglitz was asked whether the US might be heading for a second Great Depression.

“Yes, is the answer in short,” he said. “If you leave it to Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell [the Republican Senate majority leader], we will have a Great Depression. If we had the right policy structure in place we could avoid it easily?’

Stiglitz said that as a result of Trump’s mismanagement, the White House office responsible for pandemics had been closed, funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been cut, and the US had gone into the crisis without enough testing kits, masks and protective gear. Encouraged by Trump, some parts of the US were determined to reopen in a way that would facilitate the transmission of the disease and lead to a fresh outbreak, he added.

“In those circumstances it won’t be the government enforcing the lock-down, it will be fear. The concern is that people are not going to be spending on anything other than food and that’s the definition of a Great Depression,” he said.

“We were unprepared but, even given the degree of unpreparedness, Trump’s decision to make this about politics rather than about science has meant we have responded far more poorly.”

Stiglitz said that if Trump were defeated in the presidential contest in November and the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress there was a chance of the US moving in a more progressive direction, but he warned that Republicans would fight dirty to cling on to power.

“There is voter suppression and gerrymandering. The Republican party knows it’s a minority party and there is a no-holds-barred struggle going on to make sure a minority party rules America.”

Stiglitz said the current crisis would force countries to make themselves less vulnerable, and this would lead to shorter supply chains and a greater emphasis on self-sufficiency in food and energy.

He added that the complexity of modern production methods meant self-sufficiency was not feasible but added: “Fighting global pandemics and climate change require global, cooperation. It’s just that the president doesn’t understand that.

“I hope we emerge from this with the perspective that multilateral-ism is even more important than we thought. It can’t just be a corporate-driven globalisation. We have to make it more resilient?

Revealed: Private firm running UK PPE stockpile was sold in middle of pandemic

“The management and the distribution of the PPE stockpile has been outsourced to a private company, Movianto, which was sold two weeks ago for $133m (£107m) by its owner, a large US healthcare group.”

“The fact that Movianto was being sold in the midst of a global pandemic, months after being instructed by the UK government to start mobilising the PPE supply, would be remarkable enough. But the sale is only the latest development in a turbulent 18 months for Movianto, which has included legal disputes with a property developer who built the enormous warehouse in Merseyside.”

Privatisation – unintended consequences or just consequences? Unbelievable – Owl’s advice to government: keep your eye on the ball!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/revealed-private-firm-running-uk-ppe-stockpile-was-sold-in-middle-of-pandemic

The warehouse appears unremarkable, except for its size. Just off a motorway on an industrial estate in Merseyside sits a 35,000 sq m (377,000 sq ft) purpose-built warehouse with 20 loading docks to enable the storage and rapid distribution of hundreds of millions of face masks, aprons, gowns, gloves and body bags.

For security reasons, the Guardian has been asked not to disclose the precise location of the UK’s stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE) for use in a pandemic. It is being stored on a site where builders moved the equivalent of more than 90 Olympic–size swimming pools of earth to make way for a vast, climate-controlled warehouse.

However, the Guardian can reveal that the management and the distribution of the stockpile has been outsourced to a private company, Movianto, which was sold two weeks ago for $133m (£107m) by its owner, a large US healthcare group.

The fact that Movianto was being sold in the midst of a global pandemic, months after being instructed by the UK government to start mobilising the PPE supply, would be remarkable enough.

But the sale is only the latest development in a turbulent 18 months for Movianto, which has included legal disputes with a property developer who built the enormous warehouse in Merseyside.
The disputes culminated in Movianto securing a high court injunction in March last year, to thwart threats by the developer, Oliver Morley, to “lock the gates” and prevent Movianto employees from accessing the warehoused stock.

Morley’s company has since gone into administration and its legal claims against Movianto have been discontinued, but Morley maintains his legal battles with Movianto were not over. He called for an investigation into the firm, alleging there was “a much bigger story that needs to be told” about his former tenant, but declined to provide specific details.

For its part, Movianto firmly dismisses all of Morley’s allegations, pointing out that his property firm was defeated last year in court. The company insists the legal disputes and the sale have had no impact on its storage or distribution of PPE in recent months.

“Movianto firmly believes that it has and continues to perform to all contractual obligations,” the firm said.

But the saga is likely to put a spotlight on the UK government’s decision to outsource the management of the emergency stockpile. In three years, the stockpile appears to have been stored in three different warehouses. Meanwhile, management of the stock has been passed from a German–owned multinational to an American one.

In the coming months the custody of the UK’s emergency stockpile of PPE will be passed on to a family-run business based in suburban Paris.

A Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) spokesperson said: “The pandemic influenza stockpile held under this contract has remained safely and securely stored at all times and has supported our Covid-19 response through the distribution of vital personal protective equipment and essential supplies to the NHS and social care sector.”

PPE provision

Widespread shortages of PPE have dominated complaints over the government’s handling of the pandemic in recent weeks, including from NHS workers who say their lives are being endangered by the lack of adequate protection. This week an RAF plane was dispatched to Turkey to secure more supplies.

The health secretary, Matt Hancock, insists the government is rising to the challenge, and has repeatedly said the PPE challenge has been “one of distribution rather than one of supply”. In addition to procuring new supplies from China, the DHSC has been drawing on the emergency stockpile, which it has stored since 2006 under its pandemic influenza preparedness programme.

That stockpile is made up of around 52,000 pallets of equipment worth an estimated £500m. While it contains antiviral medicines and flu vaccines which are of limited use against Covid-19, the bulk of stocks are said to be PPE and hygiene products. Much of the stock needs to be frequently monitored, updated and stored in temperature–controlled conditions.

The government owns the stock, but outsources its management to private firms. Previously, the contract was held by DHL. Movianto, a subsidiary of the US health company Owens & Minor, won the £55m deal in the summer of 2018.

As part of Movianto’s plans, the company entered into business with Morley to build the vast warehouse in Merseyside. In the meantime, the pandemic stockpile was to be temporarily housed in another warehouse, also owned by Morley, in Knowsley.

Movianto’s plans were approved by the Cabinet Office, documents suggest. The company says its decision to enter into business with Morley was “made by executives no longer associated with Movianto”.

A notice for the new NHS contract stipulated that the contractor would be required to maintain “a ready state for deployment in the event of a pandemic event”.

In early 2019, Movianto became mired in disputes with Morley’s company, which accused the firm of not paying rent for the warehouse in Knowsley. According to Morley, his tenants became “uncooperative”. “This went on for weeks,” he said. Movianto strongly rejects the allegation, saying it paid rent “in accordance with the terms of the lease”.

Another grievance related to the payment of electricity bills to power the generators to ensure the stock, including medicines, was stored at the right temperature. Morley claims he ended up having to pay for electricity to power the generators, which “kept going on the blink” resulting, he alleges, in “temperature spikes”.

A Movianto source said Morley’s account was inaccurate. In a statement, Movianto said electricity generators were only needed because of “Morley’s own failure to provide a mains supply in accordance with his contractual obligations”.

By his own account, Morley’s financial disputes with Movianto culminated in him threatening the firm. “It got to the point where I said I’m just going to lock the gates and refuse you entry to the site.” When that happened, Movianto rushed to the high court in March 2019 and successfully obtained an injunction to ensure continued access to the warehouse.

Movianto said the injunction was required as “a result of Morley’s conduct and repeated threats to interfere with Movianto’s operations”. It said Morley’s allegations over rent and generators were undermined by “various court proceedings” that ruled in Movianto’s favour. In July 2019, under the control of administrators, Morley’s property company Industrial North West LLP discontinued its legal claims against Movianto.

More challenges ahead

Morley insists he will continue to seek legal action against Movianto – and he is used to high-profile disputes. In January, he lost a prominent lawsuit against RBS in which he claimed the bank’s controversial restructuring group placed him under duress by seizing his assets after struggling to repay a £75m loan. A high court judge noted Morley used the “borrowed personal wealth” to spend on “South African mining investments, property, cars, a yacht and a jet”.

Morley told the Guardian his lifestyle was the result of hard work and “had nothing to do with being a good landlord”. He insists previous business disputes are irrelevant to his grievances against Movianto, which came to a head in May 2019.

As works were completed at the Merseyside warehouse and Movianto prepared to transfer the stockpile from Knowsley, Industrial North West was forced into administration. Documents state the firm “failed to comply” with the conditions of a £61m loan facility.

Morley lost control of his warehouses and administrators stepped in. According to the administrator’s report, the legal dispute “caused delays to the construction works” at the new warehouse, which were finally completed in July 2019. Movianto said the legal disputes “have had no impact on Movianto’s work in response to Covid-19”.
According to a government source, the transfer of the UK’s emergency PPE supplies to the new warehouse was completed by the end of August 2019, four months before the first cases of Covid-19 emerged in China.

The warehouse is now owned by Warrington council, which bought the property for £45m in October. During a change of shifts on Tuesday afternoon, warehouse workers were seen having their car boots searched as they left.

In the coming months, their employer will switch from Owens & Minor to the French company EHDH Holding Group, under a deal agreed on 6 April. The sale is expected to be completed before the end of June, with demand for supplies in the UK’s pandemic stockpile expected to continue for many months.

The distribution of that stockpile’s PPE, it seems, may no longer solely be the responsibility of Movianto. Eleven days ago, the DHSC announced a new “24/7 military operation” to oversee the supply of PPE to health and care workers. “We’ve had to create a whole new logistics network, essentially from scratch,” Hancock said.

A government source said the coronavirus outbreak presented different requirements to a flu pandemic – the basis of Movianto’s original contract. Movianto was now “supporting” the government’s PPE plan through its contractual obligations, the source said. Movianto said the terms of its NHS contracts were “confidential”.

Jeff Jochims, the chief operating officer of Owens & Minor, said: “We look forward to closing the sale of Movianto business to EHDH, but in the meantime will continue our ceaseless work to support the global response to this pandemic.”

“Three houses” Jenrick spent so long in Hereford he’s out of touch with advice.

In a sign of deepening tensions between the Department of Health and Downing Street, the source said that Hancock’s Cabinet colleague Robert Jenrick was “strongly advised” not to mention the consignment at the government’s coronavirus media briefing last Saturday.

Hancock’s department ‘warned No 10’ not to publicise PPE shipment

Downing Street ignored a firm warning from Matt Hancock’s Department of Health that ministers should not publicise the expected shipment of protective kit for NHS staff from Turkey in case it backfired, a senior departmental source has told the Guardian.

In a sign of deepening tensions between the Department of Health and Downing Street, the source said that Hancock’s Cabinet colleague Robert Jenrick was “strongly advised” not to mention the consignment at the government’s coronavirus media briefing last Saturday.

Instead, the housing, communities and local government secretary – with No 10’s approval – went ahead and promised that it would arrive the next day and contain 83 tonnes of personal protective equipment (PPE), including 400,000 of the full-length surgical gowns that are in critically short supply in the NHS. Its non-arrival on Sunday led hospital bosses to go public for the first time with their “intense frustration and exasperation” with ministers over botched deliveries of PPE.

The disclosures – strongly denied by a source close to Hancock who called them “categorically not true and a fabrication” – come amid what appear to be growing difficulties at the heart of government over who is to blame for the difficulties Boris Johnson’s administration is facing over its handling of the Coronavirus crisis, especially the lack of both testing and PPE for NHS staff.
Hancock was subject to a public attack in a front-page story in Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph, quoting government insiders, over his struggle to deliver the 100,000 tests for Coronavirus a day by the end of the month that he promised in early April.

An unnamed person referred to as an insider who is close to Downing Street aides was quoted as calling the target “arbitrary”, and adding: “There is a faint irrationality behind it, just because there was a clamour for mass testing. Hancock’s 100,000 target was a response to a criticism in the media and he decided to crank out tests regardless.

“He’s not had a good crisis. The prime minister will say he has confidence in him but it doesn’t feel like that. He set out to buy time by setting this target and it threatens to come back to bite him. The 100,000 figure was Hancock’s idea, but he made that figure up.”

On Wednesday, the DHSC source said that Downing Street had been urged not to refer to the cargo before Saturday’s briefing. “We strongly advised Robert Jenrick against doing this [mentioning the Turkey shipment at the government press conference last Saturday] but he and No 10 overruled us,” the source said.

“The advice we gave as a department was that we shouldn’t mention individual orders of PPE. But for whatever reason it wasn’t followed.”

But another cabinet source said it was not right to say “it was just Matt that was warning about this”.

“Lots of people were clear that we shouldn’t be talking about any shipments before they’ve arrived. Everyone in government is normally wary of this and I don’t know why it didn’t happen this time,” he said.

The government has faced severe criticism this week over its handling of deliveries of foreign-sourced PPE to the UK. The promised arrival of 400,000 gowns urgently needed by frontline staff turning into a saga which dragged on into Wednesday, when one of three RAF planes that had been scheduled to bring the shipment back finally touched down in the UK.

The plane had been dispatched from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, where two other aircraft have been on standby to pick up further supplies from Turkey since late on 20 April.

The Department of Health and Social Care was blamed for failing to secure the necessary export approvals from Turkey after placing the order, but health sources said on 22 April that there were other reasons for the delay.

The planes remain on standby at RAF Brize Norton and may fly to Istanbul imminently if there is enough equipment waiting to make the journey worthwhile. “We’ve been told there is another delivery at the airport now, but we are not yet sure if there’s enough to justify a flight,” a defence source said.

There have been repeated ministerial assurances that the cargo would imminently arrive in the UK since Saturday when Jenrick first referred to it. His initial announcement was made even though necessary clearances had not been sought.

On Sunday, Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said he hoped the shipment would arrive the next day. That promise was tentatively repeated by Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, on Monday morning after NHS leaders intervened. “I don’t want to start making more and more promises, but I understand that flight will take off this afternoon and those [gowns] will be delivered,” Dowden said.

On Tuesday, the government finally adopted a more cautious tone. Simon Clarke, the local government minister, said the consignment would be in the UK “in the next few days”.
The Whitehall source said: “We have been telling people off across government against doing this [talking about expected deliveries before they arrive]. We just need to stop talking about them until they arrive in the country. It’s just not helpful for the government for us to be talking about it.

“The advice that we gave as a department was that we shouldn’t mention individual orders of PPE [because] supply chains are extremely unreliable. When orders fall through or are delayed, for whatever reason, it’s not good for anyone. Nobody in the NHS appreciates being told that we have got X tonnes of PPE turning up but it then not arriving.”

The source added that Hancock has made clear to No 10 and other government departments that: “We shouldn’t be making promises that can’t be delivered on an exact date when we don’t know what will arrive or when. We’re just trying to exercise caution in the way we talk about supplies.”

In the wake of last Sunday’s non-arrival from Turkey, NHS Providers and the NHS Confederation, which both represent hospital trusts in England, made clear that they wanted ministers to stop talking about PPE orders until they actually arrived and had been checked to ensure that they contain what had been ordered.

The Times view on the coronavirus lockdown: Breaking Cover

There are few ways out of the lockdown that do not contain significant risks. Testing, contact tracing and accurate data will be essential to any exit strategy.

Owl agrees but wonder on past form whether the Government is reluctant to organise the effort. Indeed this Times Editorial goes further and asks whether this Government is capable of organising the effort.

Owl is unimpressed by the way the immediate increase in testing has been organised in central locations with the expectation that Care Home staff, for example, should drive many miles, in some reported cases for hours, to the nearest test centre. Then the Government expresses surprise that these testing centres are not fully used.

To Owl this looks like a “London centric” approach. Well – hello London – the rest of the country is different, especially with regard to connectivity by public transport (assuming it is running).

http://www.thetimes.co.uk

In the film Contagion a scientist impusively injects herself with an untested vaccine. It works, is rapidly distributed globally and the people of Earth are saved from a lethal pandemic. No such fantasy solution awaits in the real world of today’s coronavirus. Although it is good news that human trials are beginning in Britain, the road to a vaccine is long and by no means assured. Extensive testing must be followed by manufacture and then distribution on a vast scale. That will take many months. A second hope, that large numbers may already have had the virus and acquired immunity, appears to be fading too. On Monday the World Health Organisation suggested that only 2-3 per cent of the global population have been infected. And while several existing drugs are being tried on very ill patients, none so far offers a panacea.

Yet there is a limit to how long the hard lockdown can be maintained. Its alarming cost is becoming clearer. Jobs and livelihoods have been lost, public debt has risen precipitously, and the longer the crisis continues, the greater the toll on the public’s physical and mental health. The International Monetary Fund has predicted a 3 per cent contraction in the global economy in 2020. That is not its worst-case scenario. The longer the pause, the deeper the economic scars.

That suggests Britain must find a way to live with the virus. The best that lockdowns can do is to suppress it to a level at which the restrictions can be safely lifted. The government must decide what that level is and how the rate of infection can subsequently be contained. A second wave that overwhelms the health system and necessitates further lockdowns would be disastrous. Not only would it cost more lives but it would risk destroying public confidence in future attempts to lift restrictions, thereby deepening the economic damage.

One possible way out of a lockdown is to suppress the epidemic to a point at which it is possible to introduce the kind of test, trace and isolate strategies being deployed in countries such as China, Singapore and South Korea. This is an established method of containing disease. But this approach is not straightforward either. It would require the rate of new infections to be suppressed to very low levels, given that everyone who had come into contact with someone who had tested positive would need to be traced and tested. It would also require a massive expansion of testing capacity, something the government has struggled with.

Another challenge would be to assemble a task force capable of rapidly identifying and then getting in touch with all those who had come into contact with the recently infected. Smartphone apps may provide clues but they are only a partial solution. Much of the work will need to be done by human beings. The overwhelming response to the NHS’s call for volunteers suggests no shortage of willing hands. The question is whether the goverment is capable of organising them. A better option may be to delegate the task to local authorities. Professor Allyson Pollock, a consultant in public health medicine, believes they could set up a national task force within a week.

Of course the alternative way out is to return to some variant of the government’s original herd immunity strategy, easing restrictions for those of working age while continuing to isolate the elderly and vulnerable who are most likely to need critical care. But distinguishing between different segments of the population raises difficult ethical issues. Besides, such a strategy would work only if younger people were convinced that the risk to their health was sufficiently low. That would require better data on morbidity rates than is currently available as well as research on how long immunity may last. Until such information becomes clearer, lifting the lockdown is perilous.

What the EU procurement furore tells us about Johnson’s real priorities

On one level, the argument about what Sir Simon McDonald said to the foreign affairs select committee this week can be dismissed as a storm in a Whitehall teacup. Hours after the head of the foreign office had called Britain’s refusal to join the European Union’s procurement efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic a “political decision”, McDonald retracted his words. Whitehall-watchers are fascinated. The wider world has bigger things to worry about.

Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist http://www.theguardian.com

But on another level, this week’s row is political dynamite – and for two main reasons.

First, and more immediately, the McDonald affair is another challenge, this time from the Whitehall high command itself, to the government’s increasingly desperate attempts to show that ministers have successfully gripped the effort to secure life-saving medical equipment and protective kit for the fight against the virus. At its most serious, it comes down to an admission that ministers who previously said that the UK did not take part in the ventilator procurement programme because of “communication” errors were actually in a position, early on in the pandemic, to save more lives by joining the scheme, and yet deliberately chose not to.

Second, Tuesday’s furore shoots a beam of light into the dark and tangled argument at the heart of British politics about the longer term strategy and objectives of Boris Johnson’s government. It is a reminder that, in this government, power still rests with those who believe the overriding objective of this administration, even now, is a hard Brexit. It implies that in Johnson’s government the fight against Covid-19 is, of course, massively important – but only up to a point.

McDonald’s session with the foreign affairs committee was not, at the outset, about participation in the EU procurement programme at all. Most of the first hour was about efforts to repatriate UK nationals from around the globe. But when, later on, the committee chair, Tom Tugendhat, asked whether Britain’s failure to take part in the EU programme was a political decision, the head of the foreign office confirmed that it was.

The hasty retraction letter on Tuesday evening was extraordinary. If nothing else, it confirms the incredible sensitivities in government at the moment about its handling of the pandemic. The letter also needs to be read carefully. The key sentence nevertheless appears to be this one: “Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels about the scheme and a political decision was not taken on whether or not to participate.”

The more you read the letter, the more questions it raises. The key point is that, in early February, while the UK’s Brussels mission did not brief ministers – the denial in the letter – about the EU scheme, the Brussels mission clearly did brief departmental civil servants. In practice, that means that Brussels briefed the Foreign Office and the Department of Health and Social Care about the ventilator procurement scheme, presumably at a senior level, in detail and as an issue requiring priority attention. Those civil servants will then have briefed their ministers, including the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, and the health secretary, Matt Hancock. So ministers were indeed briefed, only not by “our mission in Brussels”. In other words, the ministers knew about the scheme and knew they could take part in it.

What exactly happened next depends in part on what is meant by a “political decision”. That phrase has now been denied. But it is hard to take the retraction too seriously, other than as a means of removing ministerial fingerprints. It can mean what many people would assume, that the decision was political rather than practical or commercial. But in civil service-speak, a political decision can also mean a decision taken by ministers, who are political, rather than officials or expert specialists, who advise them about it.

In this context, that would most probably mean the decision, even in the shape of a “non-decision” to let the issue lie on the table, was taken by or on behalf of Boris Johnson in No 10, but it would be essentially political in both senses. That seems to fit with other evidence suggesting that the question was indeed discussed at Cobra meetings, which always report to the prime minister. It would also be valuable to clarify how and in what terms that initial decision in London was then communicated in a response to the EU in Brussels. If London chose to write itself out of the EU process in February, that may help explain why the UK claims not to have been informed about other joint schemes later.

Even without the full details, there is no way of reading these events as anything except another, and early, example of the government’s failure to take Covid-19 seriously enough soon enough. More than two months later, in Raab’s words in the Commons today, it is now the government’s official policy to take “the right measures at the right time, guided by the science and the medical experts”. But this was not true in February, when the science and the experts were ignored at Cobra. Instead, the decision not to join the EU efforts has contributed to the shortages and failings on which Keir Starmer began his parliamentary career as Labour leader today.

But the importance of the decision goes further, and in a direction that Starmer chose not to follow, perhaps wisely on his debut. The political decision not to join the EU procurement process reflected what was uppermost in Johnson’s and other minds in February. Britain, as McDonald stressed this week, had left the EU on 31 January. The Brexiters had done what they promised at the election. The national ship was being set on a course that turned its back on Europe. They weren’t interested in new post-Brexit links with EU schemes any more than they were interested in establishing such links during the transition period.

Any suggestion, at this of all moments, that the UK should opt into an EU scheme on anything will have been dismissed with contempt. It was in every way a political decision. A month or so later, things – including politics – were different. When Hancock was offered a renewed chance to join another EU-wide scheme, the offer was taken up. But by then Covid-19 was a far larger reality, the UK was facing lockdown, and ministers were playing catch-up, just as they still are today.

McDonald’s retraction on Tuesday shows that, even in the face of Covid-19, not as much has changed as some might assume. The retraction is not just a partisan correction of the record. It is a statement that the Johnson government will maintain its ideological opposition to anything except a hard Brexit. Those who say, as David Lidington did this week, that a Brexit extension is now inevitable because of Covid-19, may be deceiving themselves.

In this government, especially as it struggles to control the coronavirus outbreak in the face of shortages and deaths, the pandemic remains an all-consuming but still essentially temporary concern. Johnson’s essential project is not to save and rebuild the nation. It is Brexit. Always was. Still is.

UK underinvested in healthcare, says pharma boss

The UK has underinvested in healthcare “over many years” which has hampered its ability to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, according to the boss of Roche, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52387605

Severin Schwan, Roche chief executive, told BBC Newsnight: “the real issue here is that the UK has probably not invested enough into healthcare, both in absolute terms and in relative terms over many years. That was a problem to start with, but it really shows up in such a crisis when the system is more stressed.”

The company is a key partner of the government and Public Health England in ramping up testing for coronavirus.

Mr Schwan said: “the cooperation and the partnership with the government is excellent, but you can’t fix the infrastructure in a couple of weeks. I mean, if there is too little investment over many years into the health care system, then it’s simply not possible to ramp up as fast as you would wish in such a challenging situation.”

Roche now has 13 UK sites operating to run high-throughput swab testing for coronavirus, under its partnership with the government.

But Mr Schwan added that, in terms of these high-throughput systems, the UK still had “about half the capacity” of other European countries, like Germany and Switzerland, relative to population.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said: “The government is committing record investment to the NHS, including the Long-Term NHS funding settlement, which has been enshrined in law. We have created a whole national testing programme from scratch.

“Simultaneously, we have increased the capacity of our laboratories and established a partnership with Roche diagnostics, which has already provided thousands of additional tests.”

Mr Schwan also cast doubt on the government’s ability to hit its target of conducting 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month.He told the BBC: “I have no overview on how much capacity our competitors already provide to the UK. But if your question is, is it possible to double the infrastructure in one year, in one week, then I can clearly tell you this is not possible. This is absolutely impossible. We are already increasing the infrastructure, but to double within a week or 10 days, it’s not possible.”

The government this week said it had capacity to carry out about 40,000 tests each day, but are actually conducting less than half that figure. But the government believes that it has sufficient machines and reagent available to deliver its strategy of 100,000 tests by the end of April, according to one person familiar with the matter.

A new antibody test

Roche is planning to launch a new antibody test for coronavirus, which will identify if people have already had the virus. Mr Schwan told Newsnight that ramping up numbers for that test should be easier than for the molecular, or swab, tests for whether people currently have the disease.

“From a technology point of view, it is much easier to scale up antibody tests,” he said. “So Roche alone we have committed to provide antibody tests in the high double millions already in June.

“And there are other competitors who will provide reliable antibody tests as well. And also, very importantly, antibody testing platforms are already widely spread in labs because you need immunology tests in many other areas. And as such there’s much more capacity.

“So the ramp-up for antibody tests will be much easier, it’ll be much faster than it has been the case for molecular tests.”

Mr Schwan added that demand for the molecular coronavirus tests are far outstripping demand worldwide and that the company had prioritised the areas of greatest need and countries where the installed base of laboratories meant tests could be used, to avoid stockpiling.

Army of thousands to help trace coronavirus victims

At last something sensible from Public Health England – Owl

An army of thousands of coronavirus contact tracers is to be trained within weeks to help Britain to exit lockdown.

Council staff and civil servants are among those who will be drafted in as part of a three-tier system to ensure that every infected person is isolated before they pass the virus on to others.

JESSICA TAYLOR http://www.thetimes.co.uk

Public Health England aims to have a system running within three weeks so that it can be used if the government wants to ease restrictions.

As he declared yesterday that Britain had “reached the peak” of coronavirus cases, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, promised “very large scale” contact tracing would be in place to allow social distancing to be relaxed.

Asian countries such as South Korea and Singapore have kept outbreaks under control and minimised deaths through intensive tracing of the movements of those shown to be infected, with those who have come into close contact ordered to self-isolate.

Britain abandoned mass contact tracing a month ago as testing capacity failed to keep up with the epidemic.

The aim would be to track more than 80 per cent of people with whom an infected person had been in contact within 24 hours of diagnosis. Infected people and those they had contact with would be quarantined until the risk that they could get the illness had passed.

The plan emerged as:

  • The chief medical officer warned that some social distancing would last the rest of the year and the World Health Organisation said that “the virus will be with us for a long time”.
  • A national “antibody census” will test 300,000 people over the next year to build up a picture of how the virus has spread through Britain.
  • The NHS will “reopen” for routine care now that it has spare beds, amid warnings that 60,000 cancer patients could die.
  • Hospitals have been admonished for stockpiling supplies as it was revealed that the NHS needs up to 60 million masks a week for frontline workers.
  • Parliament hosted the first partly virtual prime minister’s questions in a sitting largely free of technical glitches.

Mr Hancock told MPs: “As we bring the number of new cases down so we will introduce contact tracing at large scale . . . Our goal is to get to a point where we can test, track and trace everybody who needs it.”

Officials are confident that Britain will have the capacity to test 100,000 people a day by the end of next week and believe this will be enough to introduce a national contact tracing scheme, pointing out that South Korea operates one on 20,000 tests a day.

They acknowledge that it will require a huge workforce and that setting one up is crucial. A Cabinet Office official said that the plan was to have the scheme running before May 7, when ministers must review the lockdown. “We cannot announce any easing of the lockdown until we know that testing and contact tracing is working effectively,” they said.

“This is why we need to have the capacity for 100,000 tests by the end of the month because even if we are not using them now we will need them at that point.”

The WHO said that countries wanting to exit lockdown must “find every case” and “trace and quarantine every contact”. Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary, pressed Mr Hancock to commit the government to having a scheme in place within two weeks. Mr Hancock replied: “We are ramping up our testing capacity and our capacity for contact tracing in a matter of weeks, and we’ll have it ready to make sure that we can use that as and when the incidence of transmission comes down.”

The NHS is developing a smartphone app that logs contact through Bluetooth. However, Allyson Pollock, a professor at Newcastle University, insisted that “we don’t need fancy expensive apps”, telling the BBC that even San Francisco was deploying a “low-tech model using people and telephones”. She estimated that training courses for volunteers, teachers or students could be done in a few days.

The Times understands that the government’s contact tracing plan envisages three levels of tracing. As well as the app, a second tier of temporary contact tracers is also planned, with officials finalising the numbers needed. Estimates have centred on about 15,000.

Public officials whose normal duties have been suspended are likely to be given basic training. Council environmental health officers are likely to be among those used. Volunteers who have come forward to help the NHS are also being considered.

A top tier made up of Public Health England’s most experienced staff will be reserved for tracing outbreaks in hospitals, care homes and other settings where lives are at immediate risk.

Coronavirus: Ban second home use, doctors tell First Minister, Wales

Senior doctors from across Wales have written to the first minister calling on him to make using second homes illegal during the Covid-19 pandemic.

By Felicity Evans Political editor, Wales https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-52055456

In the letter, the 15 clinicians warn non-essential travel to the homes is “highly likely” to increase the presence of coronavirus in rural areas.

Mark Drakeford has said ministers are considering strengthening regulations on people travelling to second homes.

On Monday, he said more details will be announced by the end of the week.

All non-essential travel, including to second homes, is illegal under the current rules.

But the doctors’ letter says second homes “facilitate non-essential movement into rural areas” placing “additional pressures on local health and emergency services”.

It express concern that existing rules are “insufficient” in protecting rural Wales against the dangers posed by tourism and holiday home use in the current public health emergency

The clinicians, who all lead health clusters in different parts of Wales, call on Mr Drakeford to do three things:

  • Make second home use illegal until the risk posed by Covid-19 has abated, even when lockdown restrictions begin to ease in other areas of Wales and the UK, to prevent a “second peak”
  • Prolong lockdown measures in rural tourist hotspot areas of Wales, specifically targeting non-essential travel to these areas
  • Give Wales’ police forces the power to force those breaking the rules to return to their main home

The doctors say that without such action “we face a very real possibility of a second peak in areas such as north and west Wales” at the worst moment, when staff resilience is low and global supplies of personal protective equipment is depleted.

“We appreciate the economic value of tourism, but this cannot be at the cost of the health of our rural population.

“We hope that the Welsh Government will show the value of devolution by being prepared to act in a swift, innovative, agile and decisive manner to safeguard the people of Wales.”

“Let history show that the government of Wales acted when it mattered the most.”

Arfon assembly member Sian Gwenllian, who speaks for Plaid Cymru on local government, called on ministers to “listen to the clinicians and act quickly to protect local communities in Wales”.

“For weeks we have been calling for tougher measures to stop the few irresponsible individuals who have ignored travelling rules,” she said.

First Minister Mark Drakeford told the assembly on Wednesday his government receives weekly reports from chief constables across Wales on the enforcement of regulations.

“Let me be clear again, travelling to a second home is not an essential journey and police in Wales are and will stop people attempting to do so,” he said.

Earlier, one of the GPs who signed the letter, Dr Eilir Hughes, told BBC Wales: “As we understand it, second residence use isn’t specifically prohibited and the police are finding enforcement is difficult particularly once tourists have arrived at their second home.

“This must be strengthened.”

 

Sixtysomethings ‘should stay at home like over‑70s’ to avoid coronavirus – big implications for East Devon

Is pressure mounting to include the whole of the 60+ “Oldies” generation in protective “cocoon” lockdown in any exit strategy ?

If it is, then there will be big implications for East Devon where nearly 40% (37%) of the population fall into this age group.

Katie Gibbons  www.thetimes.co.uk 

Millions of Britons in their sixties are at an increased risk of becoming severely ill or dying from coronavirus and should consider isolating like older people, experts warn.

The government advises that only people over the age of 70 or with underlying health conditions should isolate but research shows that people aged 60 to 69 are also at high risk of complications and death from Covid-19.

A paper highlighting the dangers faced by the 7.5 million people in the UK in that age group has led to questioning from the medical community as to why the government guidance does not adhere to World Health Organisation advice that they are at risk.

Azeem Majeed, head of the department of primary care at Imperial College London, said that while this group was at a lower risk of severe illness when compared with the over-70s the threat was still considerable.

Data on Covid-19 deaths worldwide shows that fatality rates for people aged 60 to 69 are 3.5 per cent in Italy and 3.6 per cent in China. Other countries, including Switzerland and France, encourage those aged 65 and older to stick to strict public health measures and isolate due to their increased risk of severe illness and death from the disease.

WHO and the United States Centre for Disease Control and Prevention class people over 60 and 65 respectively as being at highest risk.

In Britain the risk of death from coronavirus rises in each age group.

However, the paper, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, highlights that 85 per cent of deaths from Covid-19 are in people over 65. In the UK about 52.8 per cent of those aged 65-74 have two or more conditions, making them more vulnerable.

“Patients requiring critical care, such as respiratory support, are usually older with a median age of 60 years,” the authors said, adding that increasing the threshold for isolation to the over-60s could reduce pressure on the NHS.

As people age their immune systems weaken. Older people are also more likely to have conditions such as heart disease or diabetes, which again can affect how their immune systems cope.

Professor Majeed, who co-authored the paper with colleagues and academics from Exeter University, said: “The UK’s policy is at variance with the World Health Organisation, which states that those above the age of 60 years are at the highest risk, requiring additional preventative measures.

“To reduce hospitalisations, intensive care admissions and death we recommend that those aged between 60 and 69 are particularly stringent when implementing public healh measures such as social distancing and personal hygiene.”

Andrew Freedman, a reader in infectious diseases at Cardiff University School of Medicine, said the study “raises the question of whether healthcare workers in that age group should be shielded from frontline care of patients with Covid-19” in light of the call for retired doctors and nurses to return to work.

James Gill, honorary clinical lecturer at Warwick Medical School, and locum GP, said: “If a person older than 60 is already furloughed from work, then there is no significant disadvantage to personally implementing a more stringent approach to social distancing and self-isolation.”

Nick Phin, deputy director of the National Infection Service at Public Health England, said: “England data shows that the groups most likely to die from Covid-19 are men and those over the age of 70. Sadly, two thirds of deaths have been men and 79 per cent of all deaths are among those aged 70 and over.”

 

The state is overstretched and driven by political panic, not careful planning

“If ministers respond imaginatively to the coronavirus crisis, they will have a chance of reversing a decade of decline. They need to change tack. They must shed ideas of British exceptionalism that saw them waste chances to purchase kit and protective equipment on the global market, as well as harbour delusions that “herd immunity” was a way out of the pandemic. We must look to other nations to see what works, and copy it. At some point ideology will intervene – usually to the detriment of the country. 

….What the pandemic has taught us is that our health depends on each other. The fight against a virus is necessarily collective – and a creative government acting decisively needs to lead it.”

Editorial www.theguardian.com 

The health secretary, Matt Hancock, holds the Covid-19 press conference. ‘Ministers need to level with the public over the shortfalls and blockages,’ says our editorial. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/10 Downing Street/EPA

In the late 1980s, the biggest medical puzzle of the day was how to design an HIV vaccine. Dozens of well-funded laboratories were on the case and a solution seemed within the grasp of researchers. Thirty years on and there’s no HIV vaccine. This sobering fact ought to bring us up short. We want to believe that a treatment for Covid-19 is just around the corner. But we must steel ourselves that a vaccine, as the head of the Wellcome Trust warned, is not a given.

While no expense should be spared to find a vaccine, the UK government must also display the wherewithal to design an administrative system to support and enable the public to live with this threat. That means getting the basics right. So far the signs have not been good. In Britain, everywhere you look you see a state overstretched and driven by politicians’ panic rather than careful planning.

Compare this with democracies as different as Taiwan, Australia, Germany and South Korea. They have kept their death tolls low by using a combination of physical distancing, tight travel restrictions, mass testing and contact tracing. The spread of the disease has been mapped and programmes run to identify not just those who are sick but those they’ve been in contact with. What leaders in these countries have not done is make over-the-top claims that they are getting on top of a problem when it is plain they are not. The health secretary, Matt Hancock, said we’d have 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month. Mr Hancock is on course to miss his target by a large margin. In his defence, the prime minister had gilded the lily more extravagantly than he had.

There do not seem to be coordinated, sustained efforts by the government to ramp up capacity to meet the challenge posed by coronavirus. Test kits, reagents, swabs, personnel, personal protective equipment have all been identified as bottlenecks. The longer we take to get mass testing and contact tracing going, the longer Britain is stuck in lockdown. That is why Simon Clarke did little for public confidence when he said it was not his job – despite being the local government minister – to press council health workers into a contact tracing programme.

Ministers need to level with the public over the shortfalls and blockages. The NHS, the Department of Health and Social Care, and devolved administrations should be publishing what PPE is being distributed and how far this falls short of what is required by hospitals or by how much it exceeds their need. This is about being accountable, not a finger-pointing exercise. There should be no reason for doctors to wear ski goggles instead of masks, and nurses using cagoules rather than protective gowns. In Italy, healthcare workers experienced high rates of infection and death partly because of inadequate access to PPE. Here the death toll of such staff has risen past 100. Clarity needs to replace ambiguity when dealing with matters of life and death.

If ministers respond imaginatively to the coronavirus crisis, they will have a chance of reversing a decade of decline. They need to change tack. They must shed ideas of British exceptionalism that saw them waste chances to purchase kit and protective equipment on the global market, as well as harbour delusions that “herd immunity” was a way out of the pandemic. We must look to other nations to see what works, and copy it. At some point ideology will intervene – usually to the detriment of the country. Conservatives have done great damage by finding succour in Ronald Reagan’s wrong-headed declaration that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”. What the pandemic has taught us is that our health depends on each other. The fight against a virus is necessarily collective – and a creative government acting decisively needs to lead it.

 

‘Not my responsibility’ Minister refuses to answer key question on UK coronavirus chaos

Owl’s reading of the responses to this pandemic point to the critical need to contact trace and test, test, test. 

Although this is something we abandoned very early on (with disastrous consequences), it looks a racing certainty that it will have to be re-introduced as part of any exit strategy. Local authority environmental testing staff should have been involved at the outset, but weren’t.  It looks like the government is dithering yet again. “Not my responsibility” Gov, honest!

Simon Clarke says contact tracing is ‘not’ his responsibility

Alessandra Scotto di Santolo  www.express.co.uk

The Local Government Minister was confronted by BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme host Nick Robinson on the offer of help sent by environmental officers to councils across the country to cope with coronavirus testing. But as Mr Clarke refused to take responsibility for the issue, the BBC host blasted the Minister over the unhelpful bureaucracy stalling the Government’s coronavirus efforts.

Mr Robinson asked: “I want to ask you about something for which you do have direct responsibility. Testing, as you know, is pretty pointless without contact tracing afterwards.

“If somebody is found to have symptoms you really want to find out who they’ve been in touch with and to isolate them.

“Have you, as Local Government Minister, spoken to councils yet about using the 5000 council environmental officers who are used to this sort of contact tracing and using them in this endeavour?”

To which Mr Clarke replied: “That falls under the agents of the HFC – the future contact tracing – we haven’t taken responsibility for that role.

“Our focus is very much on financial offers for local authorities, on shielding for the extremely vulnerable, on making sure that our councils are resilient financially in the face of this crisis.

“So contact tracing doesn’t fall under my ministerial portfolio.”

At this point, the BBC host blasted: “But isn’t this a problem of silos once again.

“There are 5000 environmental workers who have, I’m told and their institute says, offered to help contact tracing. This is what they do. This is what they understand.

“Public Health England only have about a couple of hundreds, they have 5000 potentially.

“And what you’re saying to me is ‘well, it’s not my responsibility’.

“Nobody is taking up these offers of help, are they?”

A consignment of personal protective equipment being collected by the RAF from Turkey will be in the UK “in the next few days”, Mr Clarke also confirmed.

But asked whether it had left Turkey yet, he said: “I can’t speak to that, I’m afraid. All I know is it set off last night.

“It will be with us obviously in the UK in the next few days, which is the core priority.”

Mr Clarke said there is a “standing presumption” that the Government will do its utmost to buy PPE “wherever it can be sourced” and urged manufacturers to “reach out” to the Cabinet Office to log their ability to make equipment.

On testing, he said the Government is working to ensure more key workers are eligible to have the tests so “every possible slot is filled” but admitted it is an “enormous challenge”.

“We are doing our very best to make sure that we hit that target.”

The Tory Minister said it is “highly unfair” to suggest that the Government’s ambition to reach 100,000 tests by the end of the month is not “empirically grounded”.

“We are absolutely determined across the whole of the UK to hit this target,” he said.

“As I say, we are going to move from 26 current testing facilities to 50. That will in turn obviously bring those centres closer to more people and make it more viable to go there.

“We’re increasing the groups of key workers who can go and be tested.”

He added: “I really do think it is unfair to suggest that we have continued business as usual. It has not been. It has been an extraordinary response that has saved lives and saved jobs, and I think on both counts we’ve done a lot of good work which is standing us in good stead.”

 

No one is in charge of the UK’s coronavirus response – and it shows 

Something is clearly wrong. Britain does not need Boris Johnson, but it needs a prime minister, and badly. Coronavirus promises are made and not fulfilled. Orders go out and are not delivered. The clothing industry in the UK apparently cannot mass-produce a simple medical gown or mask, and must turn to Turkey, China and volunteers with sewing machines and 3D printers for supplies.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist www.theguardian.com 

Ever since Tony Blair came to power, the British government has been what some observers call “Napoleonic”. The focus of authority was one person sitting on a sofa. In good times, it has worked. In a bad time, it has collapsed. At first, Johnson didn’t take Covid-19 seriously, then he changed his mind and his advisers – and put himself in charge. Then he got ill and vanished.

Since then, a stage army of second-rate ministers, with a media alternately cheering and jeering, seemed in thrall to one man, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, whose record of modelling of past epidemics has been criticised.

Now, as countries across Europe feel their way to ending lockdown, Britain’s government refuses even to mention the phrase, let alone debate it. A public experiencing immense economic precariousness is considered unfit to be told anything, other than to obey orders of ludicrous joy-suppression. Sitting on a park bench is a police offence.

This week, the Europe-wide consensus on combating Covid-19 is starting to crumble. Death rates are plateauing, and at levels where national health services feel they can cope with a return to partial normality (as it appears can Britain’s). Shops and schools are cautiously reopening. Public spaces are refilling, within limits. In every country, every province, arguments are taking place, and what amounts to a great experiment is under way, with wildly unreliable statistics.

Not in Britain. No one is in charge. The health secretary, Matt Hancock, is a serial promiser rather than deliverer. He is like a signalman with his wires cut. The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, is clearly not senior enough to win the case for relaxation. The stand-in prime minister, Dominic Raab, intones slogans about “protecting the NHS”. A government that resorts to slogans has lost an argument.

There is now a serious functional disconnect between Whitehall on the one hand and the Covid-19 economy on the other. The failures revealed in the 2016 Cygnus report on pandemic preparedness were not acted upon. Sunak’s 80% loan scheme has not worked, because banks were told to shoulder 20% of the risk and many are naturally baling. It should have been 100%. The furlough subsidies are similarly mired in bureaucracy. Money should have been “printed” and paid into individual bank accounts, not to companies.

Most serious has been an apparent collapse in public health beyond the realm of the NHS. From the start of the outbreak, the focus of attention should have been on those already caring for the elderly. Yet for weeks, care homes and home carers were not mentioned and the progress of the virus for them was not monitored. Because they were not “our NHS”, they were not even our dead.

The NHS was showered with beds and praise, while its workers were left at home, untested. Local government, which everywhere else in Europe seems to be deeply involved this emergency, was simply ignored. Equipment was not supplied, money was not spent. Whitehall famously hates “local” – and it shows.

If Johnson really thinks the country is at war, then the enemy has walked all over him at first push. It is right that the nation should summon its spirits to boost the morale of medical and caring staff. Their morale is crucial to public confidence. But in this emergency, morale is a function of competent government. After Covid-19, never again can Britain boast to the world the quality of its healthcare.

 

Denmark and Poland refusing to bail out companies registered in tax havens

Denmark and Poland are refusing to let companies registered in offshore tax havens seek financial aid from their coronavirus bailout packages.

Faye BrownTuesday 21 Apr 2020 metro.co.uk 

Denmark and Poland are refusing to let companies registered in offshore tax havens seek financial aid from their coronavirus bailout packages.

The Danish finance ministry extended its support scheme until July, but warned firms that have not paid domestic taxes would not be eligible for state aid.

‘Companies seeking compensation after the extension of the schemes must pay the tax to which they are liable under international agreements and national rules’, a translation of the statement said. 

‘Companies based on tax havens in accordance with EU guidelines cannot receive compensation, insofar as it is possible to cut them off under EU law and any other international obligations.’

Poland has attached similar conditions to its own bailout scheme. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said large companies wanting a chunk of a roughly £5 billion bailout fund must pay domestic business taxes.

‘Let’s end tax havens, which are the bane of modern economies’ he said.

Following the news of Denmark and Poland, there were calls for other countries, including the UK to follow suit.

Tax heavens are countries which have low or no business rates. Companies can register themselves at an address at these places while avoiding paying taxes in the countries they operate.

Last year, an investigation found the UK was the ‘biggest enabler of global corporate tax dodging’. An index published by the Tax Justice Network found that the UK has ‘single-handedly’ done the most to break down the global corporate tax system which loses an estimated $500bn (£395bn) to avoidance.

Famous heavens include Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands – where Sir Richard Branson lives.

The billionaire has faced criticism this week for appealing for taxpayer aid to save his airline Virgin Atlantic, rather than drawing on his huge wealth. Many pointed out that the entrepreneur has paid the exchequer no personal income tax since moving to the tax- free Necker Island 14 years ago.

Branson said he was asking for a taxpayer loan, not a handout. He has pledged his luxury island resort as collateral to help him secure the bailout, believed to be £500m.

And he hit back at criticism that he was a tax exile who did not deserve help, saying he and his wife ‘did not leave Britain for tax reasons but for our love of the beautiful British Virgin Islands and in particular Necker Island’.

But head of Tax Justice UK Robert Palmer, has urged the government not to cave into his request.

‘Companies that seek to dodge their obligations to broader society by cutting their tax bills shouldn’t expect to get bailed out when things go wrong’ he told Business Insider.

‘The UK government should seriously look at copying Denmark’s approach. Any bailout needs to come with conditions to ensure good business behaviour.’

Nurse shortage causes Nightingale hospital to turn away patients

Dozens of patients with Covid-19 have been turned away from the NHS Nightingale hospital in London because it has too few nurses to treat them, the Guardian can reveal.

Denis Campbell  www.theguardian.com 

The disclosure comes amid a growing belief among hospital management in the capital that the Nightingale, built to great acclaim over just nine days, was becoming a “white elephant”.

The hospital has been unable to admit about 50 people with the disease and needing “life or death” care since its first patient arrived at the site, in the ExCeL exhibition centre, in London’s Docklands, on 7 April. Thirty of these people were rejected because of a lack of staff.

The planned transfer of more than 30 patients from established London hospitals to the Nightingale was “cancelled due to staffing issues”, according to NHS documents seen by the Guardian. All the patients had been intubated and were on a ventilator because they were so unwell.

The revelation raises questions about the role and future of the hospital, which up until Monday had only treated 41 patients, despite being designed to include almost 4,000 beds.

That means that the hospital has rejected more patients, owing to a combination of understaffing and the patients’ health, than it has treated. Of those 41 patients, four have died, seven have been discharged to a less critical level of care, and the other 30 were still being cared for at the Nightingale.

The hospital is being obliged to reject people needing care because it cannot get enough of the nurses usually based in other hospitals to work there, staff at the new facility claimed.

One member of staff said: “There are plenty of people working here, including plenty of doctors. But there aren’t enough critical care nurses. They’re already working in other hospitals and being run ragged there. There aren’t spare people [specialist nurses] around to do this. That’s the problem. That leads to patients having to be rejected, because there aren’t enough critical care nurses.”

Almost 20 other patients have been rejected by the Nightingale on medical grounds, for example because they were “too unwell to transfer” or had had a tube inserted into their throat to help them breathe, or because they did not meet the new hospital’s strict clinical admission criteria.

The Nightingale, which was opened in a high-profile ceremony involving Prince Charles on 3 April, admitted its first patient on 7 April and rejected the planned transfer of a patients from another London hospital for the first time on 9 April.

NHS England decided to create the hospital because they feared that within weeks hospitals in the capital would have been overwhelmed by the numbers of people needing intensive care.

At the time the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said that the NHS was “preparing for the worst but hoping for the best”.

One senior intensive care doctor said: “The Nightingale is clearly not a hospital. It’s an emergency overflow facility to ventilate patients to stop them from dying when hospitals have run out of space.”

Sir David Sloman, head of the NHS in London, oversaw the project, in which the army was closely involved, and it was approved by Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, and the prime minister, Boris Johnson.

Sloman wrote to NHS heads in London last Friday asking them to provide about 200 doctors and nurses so that the Nightingale could be used for a growing number of patients needing critical care and help established hospitals resume operations and preparations for the winter ahead.

Despite this, the Nightingale’s inability to admit patients has left established London hospitals unable to relieve the pressure on their overcrowded intensive care units by transferring people suffering from the coronavirus.

That has had the biggest impact on Northwick Park hospital, north-west London, which had to declare a “critical incident” and temporarily shut its doors to new admissions last month as the impact of the coronavirus worsened. It has been unable to transfer more than 30 patients to the Nightingale since 9 April, with many of those planned switches “cancelled due to staffing issues”, the documents show.

The Royal Free hospital, in Camden, London, has also had to abandon plans to transfer about 15 patients from its ICU to the Nightingale. Again, that was often due to lack of staff. Other hospitals in the capital, including St Mary’s, the Royal London and North Middlesex, have also had transfers blocked.

The Nightingale is already under intense scrutiny amid disagreements among NHS leaders and senior doctors in the capital over its purpose and whether or not it is a good use of resources.

A senior official at a London trust said: “It’s a white elephant. When it was conceived a month ago we were facing the prospect of hospitals in London being overrun and mass burial sites like in New York. We thought that London would be Italy and there would be more patients needing level 3 intensive care treatment by this stage.

“But the expected doubling every three days in the number of patients needing to be admitted to ICU didn’t happen. London hospitals doubled, tripled and in some cases quadrupled the capacity of their ICUs, so still have spare capacity, which means the Nightingale hasn’t been needed.”

 ‘I accepted the very first patient’: one nurse’s first week at NHS Nightingale – video

Other NHS planners said it was better to over-prepare for the pandemic. A senior intensive care doctor said: “ It was a sensible project designed to stave off the type of situation we saw in Italy. It may have just been a matter of days and we would have been thankful it existed. Thankfully, good surge planning to massively increase critical care capacity in hospitals, and a last ditch redistribution effort to move patients from stressed small hospitals to larger hospitals with space, has meant that we have not needed this type of facility.”

Stevens echoed that view at the weekend, saying: “We have not yet had to make extensive use of the Nightingale London thanks to the hard work of NHS staff, who have freed up more than 30,000 existing hospital beds, and the public, who have played their part by staying at home and saving lives.”

An NHS London spokesperson said: “The most important point about staff at the Nightingale is that thanks to their care and expertise, patients in that hospital are being successfully treated, discharged and ultimately having their life saved.

“There remains spare capacity in the critical care network across the capital to look after all coronavirus patients and others who need our care, and while it is incredibly reassuring for both staff and patients to have backup capacity at the Nightingale to alleviate pressure on ICU departments where needed, patients can be transferred to other hospitals in the city if they are better placed to receive them at that time – as is always the case.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “It is misleading to suggest coronavirus patients are being turned away from NHS Nightingale due to a shortage of staff.

“NHS Nightingale has been set up to treat patients if the NHS was overwhelmed but thanks to the great work of selfless NHS staff, there is spare capacity in existing London hospitals to treat all coronavirus patients there instead.”

 

Row over dogs being kept on leads for social distancing

Radio Devon live reporting 21 April

A row has broken out in east Devon about dogs and their owners allegedly apparently breaking social distancing rules.

Cranbrook Town Council put up notices on social media stating it was mandatory that people kept their dogs on leads and said a ranger would be checking on them.

It said it had received “many complaints” from individuals who classed themselves as vulnerable about the “lack of social distancing when dogs off leads run up to them and the owners have to retrieve their pets”.

But that upset some dog owners, who said the council did not have legal grounds to enforce any ban.

They also said they were being unfairly targeted as other walkers and runners had been ignoring regulations as well.

The council apologised for its initial post, saying it was “trying to make sense of a difficult and extraordinary situation and sometimes we get it wrong”.

But it has still called for people to abide by social distancing rules.

Exclusive: Millions of pieces of PPE are being shipped from Britain to Europe despite NHS shortages

Millions of pieces of vital protective equipment are being shipped from British warehouses to Germany, Spain and Italy despite severe shortages in this country, The Telegraph can disclose.

Lorries are being packed with masks, respirators and other PPE kit before heading back to supply hospitals in the EU, it has emerged.

By Bill Gardner 21 April 2020  www.telegraph.co.uk

On Monday night, UK firms said they had “no choice” but to keep selling the lifesaving gear abroad because their offers of help had been repeatedly ignored by the Government.

It comes as the Government faces growing criticism over the PPE crisis with hospitals close to running out of critical equipment, and doctors forced to choose between exposing themselves to the virus or “letting a patient die on their watch”.  

On Sunday, 12 million pieces of PPE were delivered to the health care sector, down from 33 million less than a fortnight ago. 

Ministers have insisted that the shortage of PPE has been caused by global supply issues as nations scramble to source reusable gear from factories in China. Former London Olympics chief Lord Deighton has been brought in to boost PPE production in this country. A much-needed shipment of 140,000 gowns arrived from Myanmar on Monday.

However, UK wholesalers revealed that their warehouses were already full of millions of pieces of PPE bought from China which were now being delivered every day to EU countries for use by frontline health workers.

Three lorries registered in Italy arrived on Monday at a warehouse owned by Veenak International, a Birmingham-based pharmaceutical wholesaler, where they took delivery of 750,000 surgical masks before heading back across the Channel.

Last week alone the firm packed five million surgical masks, more than a million FFP2 respirators and more than half a million FFP3 respirators stored inside three warehouses in Birmingham and outside Heathrow Airport on to lorries registered in the EU, a source revealed.

The company, which distributes pharmaceutical products across the UK and Europe, buys PPE from factories in China and takes a new delivery every week. Currently it has millions of pounds’ worth of PPE sitting in its warehouses, sources said.

Pictures taken inside the Veenak warehouse show boxes of PPE bought from China emblazoned with the message: “British keep fighting! You are not the only one that is fighting, we will be with you! We are waves of the same ocean!” The equipment inside is now due to be sold overseas.

Shan Hassam, chief executive of Veenak International, did not wish to discuss commercial arrangements but added: “We are a very patriotic company and we want to do all we can to help the NHS.

“We stand ready to prioritise our British customers if given the opportunity to do so.”

The company has managed to supply the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust with a number of face shields and goggles after sidestepping the government’s procurement process, it is understood. 

Dr Simon Festing, chief executive of the British Healthcare Trades Association, confirmed that “a number of our members” are continuing to sell PPE abroad after offers of help went unanswered.

“It’s an extremely difficult time for businesses and if they can’t supply to the UK then their commercial arrangements are likely to continue,” he said.

Meanwhile an analysis by The Telegraph appears to show a significant decline in the supply of PPE, with the number of items delivered on Sunday April 19 down by more than 50 per cent on 10 days ago. 

During a conference call with manufacturers on Monday, Cabinet Office officials admitted gowns would now need to be made in the UK amid a global shortage of crucial fabrics and machinery.

Officials are understood to be considering widening requirements so that textile factories can produce woven gowns using materials available in this country.

A source at the UK Fashion & Textile Association said the UK had been left “at the back of the queue” for the crucial materials and machines used to make fluid-repellent non-woven gowns after ministers initially pursued orders from China.

“It may well now be too late to get this off the ground properly,” the source said.

Meanwhile, a diplomatic row between the UK and Turkey broke out on Monday night after an RAF plane was finally dispatched to pick up 84 tonnes of lifesaving kit.

Turkish officials claimed that the UK had only submitted a formal request for the equipment on Sunday after Downing Street blamed “problems on the Turkish end”.

Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said: “We know for a fact that the first orders of additional PPE were placed on January 30. If those orders had actually come in to time and quality, then we wouldn’t have been in this position.”

Chancellor Rishi Sunak said the Government would “pursue every possible option” to secure more PPE for the UK.

At Monday’s Downing Street press conference, Mr Sunak said: “This is an international challenge that many other countries are experiencing.

“Alongside the efforts of British businesses, and our embassies around the world, we are working hard to get the PPE our frontline NHS and social care staff need.”

Last month the EU imposed an export ban on some medical protective equipment in a bid to keep sufficient supplies within the bloc. In the US, President Trump has banned “unscrupulous actors and profiteers” from exporting critical medical gear used to protect wearers from the coronavirus, although restrictions on Canada and Mexico have since been relaxed.

Greg Clark, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said it was “clearly wrong” that vital PPE supplies are being taken out of this country when hospitals are in desperate need.

“It’s extremely unfortunate that firms are selling PPE to other countries after failing to make headway with the authorities,” he said.

“I’d caution against banning exports of PPE altogether, though. If you do that, other countries might reciprocate and we’d be in an even worse situation.”

A new website, developed with the help of the military, is being rolled out over the next few weeks to improve distribution and will enable primary, social and community care providers in England to order critical PPE.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Just when you think things couldn’t get any worse….

An invasive Australian flatworm which threatens native species has been found under a cowpat on Dartmoor.

Invasion of the imported flatworm

Ben Webster, Environment Editor  www.thetimes.co.uk 

The worm, which may have arrived in an imported pot plant, has been previously found in urban areas in the UK but this is the most rural sighting, suggesting that the species is spreading.

It grows up to 8cm long, has a flattened, shiny pink-orange body and feeds on earthworms, which are essential for soil health.

The Dartmoor worm was discovered near Chagford by a neighbour of Nick Baker, a naturalist and TV presenter who identified it as the non-native species Australoplana sanguinea.

There are more than ten non-native flatworm species in the UK and once introduced they can reproduce rapidly.

Andrew Whitehouse, of the conservation charity Buglife, said that the discovery “indicates that this species is spreading into our countryside where it poses a threat to our native worms”.

“Buglife are calling on the government to ban imports of pot plants, and ensure that our country’s biosecurity is sufficient to protect our wildlife,” he added.

The charity said the Australian worm was not as great a threat as Obama nungara, a South American flatworm that eats snails and earthworms.

 

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster. The History is being written.

Last week a senior adviser to Downing Street broke ranks and blamed the weeks of complacency on a failure of leadership in cabinet. The prime minister was singled out.

“There’s no way you’re at war if your PM isn’t there,” the adviser said. “And what you learn about Boris was he didn’t chair any meetings. He liked his country breaks. He didn’t work weekends. It was like working for an old-fashioned chief executive in a local authority 20 years ago. There was a real sense that he didn’t do urgent crisis planning. It was exactly like people feared he would be.”

Insight | Jonathan Calvert, George Arbuthnott and Jonathan Leake www.thetimes.co.uk 

On the third Friday of January a silent and stealthy killer was creeping across the world. Passing from person to person and borne on ships and planes, the coronavirus was already leaving a trail of bodies.

The virus had spread from China to six countries and was almost certainly in many others. Sensing the coming danger, the British government briefly went into wartime mode that day, holding a meeting of Cobra, its national crisis committee.

But it took just an hour that January 24 lunchtime to brush aside the coronavirus threat. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, bounced out of Whitehall after chairing the meeting and breezily told reporters the risk to the UK public was “low”.

This was despite the publication that day of an alarming study by Chinese doctors in the medical journal The Lancet. It assessed the lethal potential of the virus, for the first time suggesting it was comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people.

Unusually, Boris Johnson had been absent from Cobra. The committee — which includes ministers, intelligence chiefs and military generals — gathers at moments of great peril such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters and other threats to the nation and is normally chaired by the prime minister.

Johnson had found time that day, however, to join in a lunar-new-year dragon eyes ritual as part of Downing Street’s reception for the Chinese community, led by the country’s ambassador.

It was a big day for Johnson and there was a triumphal mood in Downing Street because the withdrawal treaty from the European Union was being signed in the late afternoon. It could have been the defining moment of his premiership — but that was before the world changed.

That afternoon his spokesman played down the looming threat from the east and reassured the nation that we were “well prepared for any new diseases”. The confident, almost nonchalant, attitude displayed that day in January would continue for more than a month.

Johnson went on to miss four further Cobra meetings on the virus. As Britain was hit by unprecedented flooding, he completed the EU withdrawal, reshuffled his cabinet and then went away to the grace-and-favour country retreat at Chevening where he spent most of the two weeks over half-term with his pregnant fiancée, Carrie Symonds.

It would not be until March 2 — five weeks later — that Johnson would attend a Cobra meeting about the coronavirus. But by then it was almost certainly too late. The virus had sneaked into our airports, our trains, our workplaces and our homes. Britain was on course for one of the worst infections of the most insidious virus to have hit the world in a century.

Last week a senior adviser to Downing Street broke ranks and blamed the weeks of complacency on a failure of leadership in cabinet. The prime minister was singled out.

“There’s no way you’re at war if your PM isn’t there,” the adviser said. “And what you learn about Boris was he didn’t chair any meetings. He liked his country breaks. He didn’t work weekends. It was like working for an old-fashioned chief executive in a local authority 20 years ago. There was a real sense that he didn’t do urgent crisis planning. It was exactly like people feared he would be.”

One day there will be an inquiry into the lack of preparations during those “lost” five weeks from January 24. There will be questions about when politicians understood the severity of the threat, what the scientists told them and why so little was done to equip the National Health Service for the coming crisis. It will be the politicians who will face the most intense scrutiny.

Among the key points likely to be explored are why it took so long to recognise an urgent need for a massive boost in supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers; ventilators to treat acute respiratory symptoms; and tests to detect the infection.

Any inquiry may also ask whether the government’s failure to get to grips with the scale of the crisis in those early days had the knock-on effect of the national lockdown being introduced days or even weeks too late, causing many thousands more unnecessary deaths.

We have talked to scientists, academics, doctors, emergency planners, public officials and politicians about the root of the crisis and whether the government should have known sooner and acted more swiftly to kick-start the Whitehall machine and put the NHS onto a war footing.

They told us that, contrary to the official line, Britain was in a poor state of readiness for a pandemic. Emergency stockpiles of PPE had severely dwindled and gone out of date after becoming a low priority in the years of austerity cuts. The training to prepare key workers for a pandemic had been put on hold for two years while contingency planning was diverted to deal with a possible no-deal Brexit.

This made it doubly important that the government hit the ground running in late January and early February. Scientists said the threat from the coming storm was clear. Indeed, one of the government’s key advisory committees was given a dire warning a month earlier than has previously been admitted about the prospect of having to deal with mass casualties.

It was a message repeated throughout February, but the warnings appear to have fallen on deaf ears. The need, for example, to boost emergency supplies of protective masks and gowns for health workers was pressing, but little progress was made in obtaining the items from manufacturers, mainly in China.

Instead, the government sent supplies the other way — shipping 279,000 items of its depleted stockpile of protective equipment to China during this period in response to a request for help from the authorities there.

The prime minister had been sunning himself with his girlfriend in the millionaires’ Caribbean resort of Mustique when China alerted the World Health Organisation (WHO) on December 31 that several cases of an unusual pneumonia had been recorded in Wuhan, a city of 11 million people in Hubei province.

In the days that followed, China at first claimed the virus could not be transmitted from human to human, which should have been reassuring. But this did not ring true to Britain’s public health academics and epidemiologists, who were texting one another, eager for more information, in early January.

Devi Sridhar, professor of global public health at Edinburgh University, had predicted in a talk two years earlier that a virus might jump species from an animal in China and spread quickly to become a human pandemic. So the news from Wuhan set her on high alert.

“In early January a lot of my global health colleagues and I were kind of discussing ‘What’s going on?’” she recalled. “China still hadn’t confirmed the virus was human to human. A lot of us were suspecting it was because it was a respiratory pathogen and you wouldn’t see the numbers of cases that we were seeing out of China if it was not human to human. So that was disturbing.”

By as early as January 16 the professor was on Twitter calling for swift action to prepare for the virus. “Been asked by journalists how serious #WuhanPneumonia outbreak is,” she wrote. “My answer: take it seriously because of cross-border spread (planes means bugs travel far & fast), likely human-to-human transmission and previous outbreaks have taught overresponding is better than delaying action.”

Events were now moving fast. Four hundred miles away in London, on its campus next to the Royal Albert Hall, a team at Imperial College’s School of Public Health led by Professor Neil Ferguson produced its first modelling assessment of the impact of the virus. On Friday January 17 its report noted the “worrying” news that three cases of the virus had been discovered outside China — two in Thailand and one in Japan. While acknowledging many unknowns, researchers calculated that there could already be as many as 4,000 cases. The report warned: “The magnitude of these numbers suggests substantial human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out. Heightened surveillance, prompt information-sharing and enhanced preparedness are recommended.”

By now the mystery bug had been identified as a type of coronavirus — a large family of viruses that can cause infections ranging from the common cold to severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars). There had been two reported deaths from the virus and 41 patients had been taken ill.

The following Wednesday, January 22, the government convened the first meeting of its scientific advisory group for emergencies (Sage) to discuss the virus. Its membership is secret but it is usually chaired by the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and chief medical adviser, Professor Chris Whitty. Downing Street advisers are also present.

There were new findings that day, with Chinese scientists warning that the virus had an unusually high infectivity rate of up to 3.0, which meant each person with the virus would typically infect up to three more people.

One of those present was Imperial’s Ferguson, who was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, whereas for most flu outbreaks it is about 1.3, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking.

The professor’s other bombshell in the report was that there needed to be a 60% cut in the transmission rate — which meant stopping contact between people. In layman’s terms it meant a lockdown, a move that would paralyse an economy already facing a battering from Brexit. At the time such a suggestion was unthinkable in the government and belonged to the world of post-apocalypse movies.

The growing alarm among scientists appears not to have been heard or heeded by policy-makers. After the January 25 Cobra meeting, the chorus of reassurance was not just from Hancock and the prime minister’s spokesman: Whitty was confident too.

“Cobra met today to discuss the situation in Wuhan, China,” said Whitty. “We have global experts monitoring the situation around the clock and have a strong track record of managing new forms of infectious disease . . . there are no confirmed cases in the UK to date.”

However, by then there had been 1,000 cases worldwide and 41 deaths, mostly in Wuhan. A Lancet report that day presented a study of 41 coronavirus patients admitted to hospital in Wuhan, which found that more than half had severe breathing problems, a third required intensive care and six had died.

And there was now little doubt that the UK would be hit by the virus. A study by Southampton University has shown that 190,000 people flew into the UK from Wuhan and other high-risk Chinese cities between January and March. The researchers estimated that up to 1,900 of these passengers would have been infected with the coronavirus — almost guaranteeing the UK would become a centre of the subsequent pandemic.

Sure enough, five days later, on Wednesday January 29, the first coronavirus cases on British soil were found when two Chinese nationals from the same family fell ill at a hotel in York. The next day the government raised the threat level from low to moderate.

On January 31 — or Brexit day, as it had become known — there was a rousing 11pm speech by the prime minister promising that withdrawal from the European Union would be the dawn of a new era, unleashing the British people, who would “grow in confidence” month by month.

By this time there was good reason for the government’s top scientific advisers to feel creeping unease about the virus. The WHO had declared the coronavirus a global emergency just the previous day, and scientists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine had confirmed to Whitty in a private meeting of the Nervtag advisory committee on respiratory illness that the virus’s infectivity could be as bad as Ferguson’s worst estimate several days earlier.

The official scientific advisers were willing to concede in public that there might be several cases of the coronavirus in the UK. But they had faith that the country’s plans for a pandemic would prove robust.

This was probably a big mistake. An adviser to Downing Street — speaking off the record — said their confidence in “the plan” was misplaced. While a possible pandemic had been listed as the No 1 threat to the nation for many years, the source said that in reality it had long since stopped being treated as such.

Several emergency planners and scientists said that the plans to protect the UK in a pandemic had once been a priority and had been well funded for the decade following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. But then austerity cuts struck. “We were the envy of the world,” the source said, “but pandemic planning became a casualty of the austerity years, when there were more pressing needs.”

The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.

An equally lengthy list of recommendations to address the deficiencies was never implemented. The source said preparations for a no-deal Brexit “sucked all the blood out of pandemic planning” in the following years.

In the year leading up to the coronavirus outbreak key government committee meetings on pandemic planning were repeatedly “bumped” off the diary to make way for discussions about more pressing issues such as the beds crisis in the NHS. Training for NHS staff with protective equipment and respirators was also neglected, the source alleges.

Members of the government advisory group on pandemics are said to have felt powerless. “They would joke between themselves, ‘Ha-ha, let’s hope we don’t get a pandemic’, because there wasn’t a single area of practice that was being nurtured in order for us to meet basic requirements for a pandemic, never mind do it well,” said the source.

“If you were with senior NHS managers at all during the last two years, you were aware that their biggest fear, their sweatiest nightmare, was a pandemic, because they weren’t prepared for it.”

It meant that the government had much catching-up to do as it became clear that this “nightmare” was turning into a distinct possibility in February. But the source said there was still little urgency. “Almost every plan we had was not activated in February. Almost every government department has failed to properly implement their own pandemic plans,” the source said.

One deviation from the plan, for example, was a failure to give an early warning to firms that there might be a lockdown so they could start contingency planning. “There was a duty to get them to start thinking about their cashflow and their business continuity arrangements,” the source said.

A central part of any pandemic plan is to identify anyone who becomes ill, vigorously pursue all their recent contacts and put them into quarantine. That involves testing, and the UK seemed to be ahead of the game. In early February Hancock proudly told the Commons the UK was one of the first countries to develop a new test for the coronavirus. “Testing worldwide is being done on equipment designed in Oxford,” he said.

So when Steve Walsh, a 53-year-old businessman from Hove, East Sussex, was identified as the source of the second UK outbreak on February 6, all his contacts were followed up with tests. Walsh’s case was a warning of the rampant infectivity of the virus: he is believed to have passed it to five people in the UK after returning from a conference in Singapore, as well as six overseas.

But Public Health England failed to take advantage of our early breakthroughs with tests and lost early opportunities to step up production to the levels that would later be needed.

This was in part because the government was planning for the virus using its blueprint for fighting the flu. Once a flu pandemic has found its way into the population and there is no vaccine, the virus is allowed to take its course until “herd immunity” is acquired. Such a plan does not require mass testing.

A senior politician told this newspaper: “I had conversations with Chris Whitty at the end of January, and they were absolutely focused on herd immunity. The reason is that with flu, herd immunity is the right response if you haven’t got a vaccine.

“All of our planning was for pandemic flu. There has basically been a divide between scientists in Asia, who saw this as a horrible, deadly disease on the lines of Sars, which requires immediate lockdown, and those in the West, particularly in the US and UK, who saw this as flu.”

The prime minister’s top adviser, Dominic Cummings, is said to have had initial enthusiasm for the herd immunity concept, which may have played a part in the government’s early approach to managing the virus. The Department of Health firmly denies that “herd immunity” was ever its aim and rejects suggestions that Whitty supported it. Cummings also denies backing the concept.

The failure to obtain large amounts of testing equipment was another big error of judgment, according to the Downing Street source. It would later be one of the big scandals of the coronavirus crisis that the considerable capacity of Britain’s private laboratories to mass-produce tests was not harnessed during those crucial weeks of February.

“We should have communicated with every commercial testing laboratory that might volunteer to become part of the government’s testing regime, but that didn’t happen,” said the source.

The lack of action was confirmed by Doris-Ann Williams, chief executive of the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association, which represents 110 companies that make up most of the UK’s testing sector. Amazingly, she said her organisation did not receive a meaningful approach from the government asking for help until April 1 — the night before Hancock bowed to pressure and announced a belated and ambitious target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of this month.

There was also a failure to replenish supplies of gowns and masks for health and care workers in the early weeks of February — despite NHS England declaring the virus its first “level 4 critical incident” at the end of January.

It was a key part of the pandemic plan — the NHS’s Operating Framework for Managing the Response to Pandemic Influenza, dated December 2017 — that the NHS would be able to draw on “just in case” stockpiles of PPE.

But many of the “just in case” stockpiles had dwindled, and equipment was out of date. As not enough money was being spent on replenishing stockpiles, this shortfall was supposed to be filled by activating “just in time” contracts, which had been arranged with equipment suppliers in recent years to deal with an emergency. The first order for equipment under the “just in time” protocol was made on January 30.

However, the source said that attempts to call in these “just in time” contracts immediately ran into difficulties in February because they were mostly with Chinese manufacturers, which were facing unprecedented demand from the country’s own health service and elsewhere.

This was another nail in the coffin for the pandemic plan. “It was a massive spider’s web of failing; every domino has fallen,” said the source.

The NHS could have contacted UK-based suppliers. The British Healthcare Trades Association (BHTA) was ready to help supply PPE in February — and throughout March — but it was only on April 1 that its offer of help was accepted. Dr Simon Festing, the organisation’s chief executive, said: “Orders undoubtedly went overseas instead of to the NHS because of the missed opportunities in the procurement process.”

Downing Street admitted on February 24 — just five days before NHS chiefs warned a lack of PPE left the health service facing a “nightmare” — that the UK government had supplied 1,800 pairs of goggles and 43,000 disposable gloves, 194,000 sanitising wipes, 37,500 medical gowns and 2,500 face masks to China.

A senior Department of Health insider described the sense of drift witnessed during those crucial weeks in February: “We missed the boat on testing and PPE . . . I remember being called into some of the meetings about this in February and thinking, ‘Well, it’s a good thing this isn’t the big one.’

“I had watched Wuhan but I assumed we must have not been worried because we did nothing. We just watched. A pandemic was always at the top of our national risk register — always — but when it came we just slowly watched. We could have been Germany, but instead we were doomed by our incompetence, our hubris and our austerity.”

In the Far East the threat was being treated more seriously in the early weeks of February. Martin Hibberd, a professor of emerging infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was in a unique position to compare the UK’s response with Singapore, where he had advised in the past.

“Singapore realised, as soon as Wuhan reported it, that cases were going to turn up in Singapore. And so they prepared for that. I looked at the UK and I can see a different strategy and approach.

“The interesting thing for me is, I’ve worked with Singapore in 2003 and 2009 and basically they copied the UK pandemic preparedness plan. But the difference is they actually implemented it.”

Towards the end of the second week of February, the prime minister was demob happy. After sacking five cabinet ministers and saying everyone “should be confident and calm” about Britain’s response to the virus, Johnson vacated Downing Street after the half-term recess began on February 13.

He headed to the country for a “working” holiday at Chevening with Symonds and would be out of the public eye for 12 days. His aides were thankful for the rest, as they had been working flat-out since the summer as the Brexit power struggle had played out.

The Sunday newspapers that weekend would not have made comfortable reading. The Sunday Times reported on a briefing from a risk specialist that said Public Health England would be overrun during a pandemic as it could test only 1,000 people a day.

Johnson may well have been distracted by matters in his personal life during his stay in the countryside. Aides were told to keep their briefing papers short and cut the number of memos in his red box if they wanted them to be read.

His family needed to be prepared for the announcement that Symonds, who turned 32 in March, was pregnant and that they had been secretly engaged for some time. Relations with his children had been fraught since his separation from his estranged wife Marina Wheeler and the rift had deepened when she received a cancer diagnosis last year.

The divorce also had to be finalised. Midway through the break it was announced in the High Court that the couple had reached a settlement, leaving Wheeler free to apply for divorce.

There were murmurings of frustration from some ministers and their aides at the time that Johnson was not taking more of a lead. But Johnson’s aides are understood to have felt relaxed: he was getting updates and they claim the scientists were saying everything was under control.

By the time Johnson departed for the countryside, however, there was mounting unease among scientists about the exceptional nature of the threat. Sir Jeremy Farrar, an infectious disease specialist who is a key government adviser, made this clear in a recent BBC interview.

“I think from the early days in February, if not in late January, it was obvious this infection was going to be very serious and it was going to affect more than just the region of Asia,” he said. “I think it was very clear that this was going to be an unprecedented event.”

By February 21 the virus had already infected 76,000 people, had caused 2,300 deaths in China and was taking a foothold in Europe, with Italy recording 51 cases and two deaths the following day. Nonetheless Nervtag, one of the key government advisory committees, decided to keep the threat level at “moderate”.

Its members may well regret that decision with hindsight, and it was certainly not unanimous. John Edmunds, one of the country’s top infectious disease modellers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was participating in the meeting by video link, but his technology failed him at the crucial moment.

Edmunds wanted the threat level to be increased to high but could not make his view known as the link was glitchy. He sent an email later making his view clear. “JE believes that the risk to the UK population [in the PHE risk assessment] should be high, as there is evidence of ongoing transmission in Korea, Japan and Singapore, as well as in China,” the meeting’s minutes state. But the decision had already been taken.

Peter Openshaw, professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College, was in America at the time of the meeting but would also have recommended increasing the threat to high. Three days earlier he had given an address to a seminar in which he estimated that 60% of the world’s population would probably become infected if no action was taken and 400,000 people would die in the UK.

By February 26 there were 13 known cases in the UK. That day — almost four weeks before a full lockdown would be announced — ministers were warned through another advisory committee that the country was facing a catastrophic loss of life unless drastic action was taken. Having been thwarted from sounding the alarm, Edmunds and his team presented their latest “worst scenario” predictions to the scientific pandemic influenza group on modelling (SPI-M), which directly advises the country’s scientific decision-makers in Sage.

It warned that 27 million people could be infected and 220,000 intensive care beds would be needed if no action were taken to reduce infection rates. The predicted death toll was 380,000. Edmunds’s colleague Nick Davies, who led the research, says the report emphasised the urgent need for a lockdown almost four weeks before it was imposed.

The team modelled the effects of a 12-week lockdown involving school and work closures, shielding the elderly, social distancing and self-isolation. It estimated this would delay the impact of the pandemic but there still might be 280,000 deaths over the year.

The previous night Johnson had returned to London for the Conservatives’ big fundraising ball, the Winter Party, at which one donor pledged £60,000 for the privilege of playing a game of tennis with him.

By this time the prime minister had missed five Cobra meetings on the preparations to combat the looming pandemic, which he left to be chaired by Hancock. Johnson was an easy target for the opposition when he returned to the Commons the following day: the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, labelled him a “part-time” prime minister for his failure to lead on the virus crisis or visit the areas of the UK badly hit by floods.

By Friday February 28 the virus had taken root in the UK, with reported cases rising to 19, and the stock markets were plunging. It was finally time for Johnson to act. He summoned a TV reporter into Downing Street to say he was on top of the coronavirus crisis.

“The issue of coronavirus is something that is now the government’s top priority,” he said. “I have just had a meeting with the chief medical officer and secretary of state for health talking about the preparations that we need to make.”

It was finally announced that he would be attending a meeting of Cobra — after a weekend at Chequers with Symonds where the couple would publicly release news of the engagement and their baby.

On the Sunday there was a meeting between Sage committee members and officials from the Department of Health and the NHS that was a game-changer, according to a Whitehall source. The meeting was shown fresh modelling based on figures from Italy suggesting that 8% of infected people might need hospital treatment in a worst-case scenario. The previous estimate had been 4%-5%.

“The risk to the NHS had effectively doubled in an instant. It set alarm bells ringing across government,” said the Whitehall source. “I think that meeting focused minds. You realise it’s time to pull the trigger on the starting gun.”

At the Cobra meeting the next day, with Johnson in the chair, a full “battle plan” was finally signed off to contain, delay and mitigate the spread of the virus. This was on March 2 — five weeks after the first Cobra meeting on the virus.

The new push would have some positive benefits such as the creation of new Nightingale hospitals, which greatly increased the number of intensive care beds. But there was a further delay that month of nine days in introducing the lockdown as Johnson and his senior advisers debated what measures were required. Later the government would be left rudderless again after Johnson himself contracted the virus.

As the number of infections grew daily, some things were impossible to retrieve. There was a worldwide shortage of PPE, and the prime minister would have to personally ring manufacturers of ventilators and testing kits in a desperate effort to boost supplies.

The result was that the NHS and care home workers would be left without proper protection and insufficient numbers of tests to find out whether they had been infected. To date 50 doctors, nurses and NHS workers have died. More than 100,000 people have been confirmed as infected in Britain and 15,000 have died.

This weekend sources close to Hancock said that from late January he instituted a “prepare for the worst” approach to the virus, held daily meetings and started work on PPE supplies.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “Our response has ensured that the NHS has been given all the support it needs to ensure everyone requiring treatment has received it, as well as providing protection to businesses and reassurance to workers. The prime minister has been at the helm of the response to this, providing leadership during this hugely challenging period for the whole nation.”

 

Fierce rebuttals mark change to UK Covid-19 media strategy

Key government advisers spent a portion of the weekend writing 2,000-plus-word, line-by-line rebuttals of two highly critical news newspaper stories, in what appears to be a marked shift in media management.

The responses to stories in the Sunday Times and Financial Times, posted to the government’s website without an author credit, are unlikely to reach anything like the audiences who read the original articles – but suggest deep concern in Whitehall regarding criticism of the handling of the pandemic.

Owl was in two minds about posting the Sunday Times article, eventually decided it was too long.

However, in a screeching U- turn Owl is posting the article as a companion piece. Close your eyes – keep it secret – Save our faces.

Jim Waterson  www.theguardian.com 

Furious government rebuttals of press stories are nothing new, nor is the practice of posting them to an official website. The difference this time is the manner in which the authors of the pieces dedicated themselves to going through each piece so meticulously.

One response was to a widely shared piece by the Sunday Times Insight team, which built the case that Britain wasted five weeks in appreciating the threat of the virus due to mismanagement and a focus on Brexit at the top of government. Sources said those involved in the “team effort” to respond to the piece included some of Boris Johnson’s political aides, one of Matt Hancock’s key advisers, and a number of government officials, who worked throughout the day to challenge some of the points made in the piece.

While some of the rebuttals were over semantics, others focused on specifics. One point complained that when the Sunday Times criticised the government for allowing 279,000 items of protective equipment to be sent from the UK to China in the early days of the outbreak, the newspaper failed to point out that 12m items had since come back in the other direction.

However, government ministers may find that doing their own journalism is an equally fraught process. One of those quoted in the government’s rebuttal was Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet medical journal. Horton himself is now rebutting the rebuttal, accusing the government of “deliberately rewriting history in its ongoing Covid-19 disinformation campaign”.

The second piece that angered ministers was an article by Peter Foster in the Financial Times, which criticised the government’s attempts to persuade industry to build new ventilators for hospitals. In a sign of changing attitudes to media, the government’s 2,900-word rebuttal to this piece focused as much on Foster’s tweets about the story as the original piece – potentially recognising that the number of people who read an individual article on a news website can often be smaller than the number of people who see a Twitter thread.

Although both rebuttals were widely shared in political and journalism circles on Twitter, they are unlikely to reach a mass audience. The original Sunday Times piece already clocked in at just over 5,000 words. The government’s response – setting out what they claimed to be a “series of falsehoods and errors” in a piece that “actively misrepresents the enormous amount of work that was going on in government at the earliest stages of the coronavirus outbreak” – was 2,000 words long.

Instead, a recently departed government press aide speculated that the real purpose may have been to blunt the impact of the critical narrative taking hold in other outlets and being repeated by broadcast news outlets that reach millions of people.

A government source said they had always responded to articles perceived to be inaccurate: “The length of our rebuttal depends on how much we have to correct and how much any article misrepresents what’s actually going on.”